¹ See Gungwu, Wang, ‘Traditional Leadership in a New Nation: The Chinese in Malaya and Singapore’, in Wijeyawardene, G. (ed.), Leadership and Authority: A Symposium (Singapore, 1968), p. 210Google Scholar; see also Gungwu, Wang, Community and Nation: Essays on Southeast Asia and The Chinese (Singapore, 1981), p. 162.Google Scholar

² Ibid.

³ This term is still popularly used in Singapore and Malaysia. The association of mining proprietors is called ‘K'uang-shang kung-hui’, and the term ‘K'uang-shang’ is frequently used by local Chinese newspapers to refer to those mining proprietors.

⁴ For a discussion of the impact of Confucianism on traditional Chinese class structure, see Chu, Tung-tsu, ‘Chinese Class Structure and Its Ideology’, in Fair-bank, J. K. (ed.), Chinese Thought and Institutions (Chicago, 1967), pp. 235–50.Google Scholar

⁵ Sing Po editorial commented that more and more Chinese merchants were interested in acquiring Ch'ing official titles because of their increasing consciousness of status and prestige. See Sing Po, 9/8/1892, pp. 1 and 8Google Scholar. For a discussion of the motives of acquiring Ch'ing titles by the Chinese in Singapore and Malaya during this period, see Ching-hwang, Yen ‘Ch'ing's Sale of Honours and the Chinese Leadership in Singapore and Malaya 1877–1912’, in Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, vol. 1, no. 2 (Singapore, 1970), pp. 20–32.Google Scholar

⁶ See Ho, Ping-ti, The Ladder of Success in Imperial China (New York, 1964), pp. 18ff.Google Scholar

⁷ The wearing of Chinese jackets and robes can be seen from photographs of some wealthy Chinese in Singapore, in particular the photograph of Hoo Ah Kay, Tan Beng Swee, Ong Sam Leong, Wee Ah Hood, and Lee Cheng Yan, see Siang, Song Ong, One Hundred Years' History of the Chinese in Singapore (London 1923; Singapore, 1967, reprint), pp. 52–111Google Scholar; I guess that most of the jackets and robes of these wealthy Chinese were made of good quality silk, partly because a large quantity of Soochow and Hangchow silk (the best produced in China) was imported and sold in Singapore. Chop Mei Jui Ho, for instance, was famous for its dealing in Soochow and Hangchow silk. See Huang Shan-ju, ‘Wu-Shih chiu nien te hui-ku’ (Reminiscence of My Past Fifty-Nine Years), in Chai-ning, Huang (ed.), Hsin-chia-po Ning-yang hui-kuan i-pai san-shih chou-nien chi-nien t'e-k'an (Souvenir Magazine of 130th Anniversary Celebration of the Ning Yeung Association of Singapore) (Singapore, 1952), ‘lun-chu’ column, pp. 9–12.Google Scholar

⁸ In February 1869, some wealthy Chinese merchants issued a circular requesting their friends to distinguish themselves from the members of the lower classes by wearing stockings. See Siang, Song Ong, Chinese in Singapore, p. 153.Google Scholar

⁹ See Chin, Siah U (Seah Eu Chin), ‘General Sketch of the Numbers, Tribes, and Avocations of the Chinese in Singapore’, in Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia, vol. 2 (Singapore, 1848), p. 288.Google Scholar

¹⁰ In 1907, a skilled worker (fitter, moulder or brass worker) employed by the Messrs Riley Hargreave & Company Ltd earned at least $1.4 per day. He worked 6 days a week or more, so his income must have been at least $36 per month. A junior officer, such as clerk or draughtsman, earned between $40 and $50 a month in 1890. See ‘Evidence given by C. E. F. Saunderson, Acting Managing Director of Messrs. Riley Hargreaves & Co. Ltd., on 10th August 1907’, in Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States Opium Commission 1908, Proceedings, vol. 2, p. 34Google Scholar; The Perak Government Gazette, 1890, vol. 3, no. 14, p. 284Google Scholar; The Perak Government Gazette, 1891, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 64.Google Scholar

¹¹ Chin, Siah U, ‘General Sketch’ (see n.9), pp. 288–9Google Scholar; in 1847, Dr R. Little interviewed a group of opium smokers in prison in Singapore and found that most of them (29 out of 35) were coolies who spent most of their income on opium. The average monthly income was about S$4. See Little, R., ‘On the Habitual Use of Opium in Singapore’, in Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia, vol. 2 (1848), pp. 41–2.Google Scholar

¹² At the turn of the present century, tin-mining workers in Malay earned between S$5 and S$8 per month. In 1911, the agricultural workers were paid from S$5 to S$g in Singapore and from S$6 to S$ 12 in Penang. See Straits Settlements Blue Books, 1911, p. W3Google Scholar; Jackson, R. N., Immigrant Labour and the Development of Malaya, 1786–1920 (Kuala Lumpur, 1961), p. 89.Google Scholar

¹³ Gan Ghoh Bee was the head of a syndicate which controlled the Penang Opium and Spirit Farms between 1901 and 1903. The net profit of the Farm was $700,000. Gan held one-fourth share of the syndicate which amounted to $ 150,000 for those three years. See ‘Correspondence regarding the Reduction in the Rent of the Penang Opium and Spirit Farms’, in Straits Settlements Legislative Council Proceedings 1905Google Scholar, appendix no. 10.

¹⁴ See Lat Pau (The Straits Daily), 1/9/1888, p. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Lat Pau, 14/2/1889, p. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Under Hong Lim's name, a sum of S$4000 was donated, his son Jim Hean donated S$1725, another son Jim Kheng $795, and another son Jim Chwan S$1450. See The Straits Times, 3/1/1890, p. 2Google Scholar; Pau, Lat 5/2/1890, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Siang, Song Ong, Chinese in Singapore, p. 169.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 184.

¹⁹ Obviously that donations for various relief funds in China were the payment for the purchase of Ch'ing honours. For details, see Ching-hwang, Yen, ‘Ch'ing Sale of Honours and the Chinese Leadership in Singapore and Malaya 1877–1912’, in Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, vol. 1, no. 2 (09 1970), pp. 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ This practice still can be seen in shops in Singapore and Malaysia.

²¹ See Chin, Siah U, ‘General Sketch’ (see n. 9), p. 288.Google Scholar

²² See Selangor Journal, vol. 4 (Kuala Lumpur, 1895), pp. 27–9.Google Scholar

²³ See the ‘Petition of House-Owners in Singapore to the Governor and the Members of the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements dated 29th October, 1875’, in Straits Settlements Legislative Council Proceedings 1876, appendix no. 9.Google Scholar

²⁴ See Siang, Song Ong, Chinese in Singapore, p. 20.Google Scholar

²⁵ See a court case involved in the dispute over inheritance of the estate of Seah Eu Chin (Siah U Chin) between Seah Liang Seah and Kiat, Seah Eng, in Straits Settlements Law Reports, vol. 4 (1897), p. 28.Google Scholar

²⁶ See ‘Annual Report on the State of Selangor for the Year 1885’, in Straits Settlements Legislative Council Proceedings 1886, appendix no. 22, p. 284.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Chin, Siah U, ‘General Sketch’ (see n. 9), p. 284.Google Scholar

²⁸ For instance, a wealthy Chinese capitalist, Cheng Keng Kuei, once a Chinese Kapitan of Perak, had several wives and concubines; another wealthy Chinese in Penang, Hseuh Tseng-i also had at least five wives and concubines. See Kuo-hsiang, K'uang, Ping-ch'eng san-chi (Anecdotes of Penang) (Hong Kong, 1958), pp. 113, 120.Google Scholar

²⁹ A number of mansions were built in Singapore in the second half of the 19th century by these wealthy capitalists. One of the mansions which was built by a well-known Teochew, Ch'en Hsu-nien, still exists in Singapore. See Ch'ing-chiang, Chang, ‘Ch'en Hsu-nien yu tzu-cheng ti’ (Ch'en Hsu-nien and his Mansion), in Lin Hsiao-sheng and others, Shih-le ku-chi (The Historical Relics of Singapore) (Singapore, 1975), pp. 225–30Google Scholar. Apart from mansions, the rich also built villas and gardens for enjoyment of their life. Cheang Hong Lim had a famous ‘Ming Yun villa’, Wu Chin-ch'ing, also known as Wu I-ting had a villa named ‘Teh Yuen Garden’. But the most famous garden was built by Hoo Ah Kay named ‘Nam Sang Garden’ which impressed many European and Chinese visiting dignitaries. See Pau, Lat, 5/6/1888, p. 1Google Scholar; Po, Sing, 3/5/1892, p. 1Google Scholar; Sung-t'ao, Kuo, Shih-hsi chi-ch'eng (The Record of an Envoy's Journey to the West)Google Scholar; see also Frodsham's, J. D. English translation, in Frodsham, J. D. (trans.), The First Chinese Embassy to the West: The Journals of Kuo Sung-t'ao, Liu Hsi-hung and Chang Te-yi (Oxford, 1974), PP. 13–14.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Lat Pau, 10/12/1890, p. 1Google Scholar; see also Ching-hwang, Yen, ‘Ch'ing Sale of Honours’, p. 28.Google Scholar

³¹ For instance, a wealthy capitalist in Singapore, Choa Chong Long, celebrated his forty-fourth birthday by giving a grandiose dinner to all influential residents in the island, including many Europeans. European dishes and Chinese luxuries were served. See The Singapore Chronicle, 9/6/1831; Buckley, C. B., An Anecdotal History of Old Times in Singapore 1819–1867 (Kuala Lumpur, 1965, reprint), p. 215Google Scholar; Siang, Song Ong, Chinese in Singapore, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

³² For instance, a wealthy capitalist in Singapore, Wu Hsin-k'o (or known as Wu Chin-ch'ing, or Wu I-ting, and in Song Ong Siang's work romanized as Goh Sin Kho), celebrated the occasion of receiving a tablet deed from the Ch'ing court in June 1888. A big party was thrown in his villa, Teh Yuan Garden, with fireworks. Among those invited were other wealthy capitalists and the Ch'ing Consul, Tso Ping-lung. Wu was the proprietor of the firm Goh Guan Loo and Company owning several saw-mills at Kallang and owner of steamships. Another wealthy capitalist, Khoo Seok Wan, in October 1901 celebrated his acquisition of the Chu-shih title and the Fourth Rank, and more than five hundred guests were invited. See ‘Teh-yuan yuan t'i-ch'in chi’ (The Gathering in the Teh Yuan Garden), in Lat Pau, 5/6/1888, p. 1Google Scholar; Siang, Song Ong, Chinese in Singapore, p. 318Google Scholar; Thien Nan Shin Pao, 26/10/1901, p. 9, 29/10/1901, p. 2.Google Scholar

³³ See Sing Po, 3/5/1892, p. 1.Google Scholar

³⁴ This practice is still common among shopkeepers in small towns in Malaysia.

³⁵ See Vaughan, J. D., The Manners and Customs of the Chinese of the Straits Settlements (Taipei, 1971, reprint), p. 26.Google Scholar

³⁶ Coolie is the transliteration of a Chinese term ‘K'u-li’ which means labourers. The term coolie became so popular in the West because of the massive number of Chinese labourers shipped to the new world. For a discussion of this term, see Irick, R. L., ‘Ch'ing Policy Toward The Coolie Trade, 1847–1878’ (an unpublished Ph.D. thesis of Harvard University, 1971) vol. 1, P. 3.Google Scholar

³⁷ The term ‘sinkheh’ seems to be the romanization according to a Southern Fukienese dialect of ‘Hsin-k'e’ which literally means new guests.

³⁸ See Jackson, R. N., Immigrant Labour and The Development of Malaya, p. 51.Google Scholar

³⁹ Both official and private records have indicated that gambling and opium smoking were rife in the overseas Chinese community during this period. See Vaughan, J. D., ‘Notes on Chinese of Pinang’, in Journal of The Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia, vol. 8 (1854), pp. 25–7Google Scholar; Vaughan, J. D., The Manners and Customs of the Chinese of the Straits Settlements, pp. 58–62Google Scholar; Pau, Lat, 27/11/1887, p. 1Google Scholar; C.O. 273/257, p. 625.Google ScholarAnnual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements, 1904, pp. 108–9Google Scholar; Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements, 1908, pp. 87–98.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ The need of this large number of single male workers was reflected in the number of brothels and prostitutes. In 1905, there were 383 brothels in Singapore, 144 in Penang and 21 in Malacca; and there were 2710 prostitutes in Singapore, 1201 in Penang and 158 in Malacca. This gives a total number of 548 brothels in these three cities, and the total number of prostitutes was 4069. Apart from these registered brothels and prostitutes, there were also many illegal brothels and prostitutes. See Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements, 1905, p. 631Google Scholar; Lat Pau, 24/12/1887, p. 2Google Scholar, 13/12/1888, p. 1.

⁴¹ See Chin, Siah U, ‘General Sketch’, p. 285.Google Scholar

⁴² See Ching-hwang, Yen, ‘Early Chinese Clan Organizations in Singapore and Malaya 1819–1911’, in Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, vol. 12, no. 1 (March 1981), p. 81Google Scholar; Vaughan, J. D., ‘Notes on Chinese of Pinang’, p. 15Google Scholar; ‘Hsueh-lan-ngo Char-yang hui-ch'un kuan shih’ (A History of the Char Yang Recuperation Centre of Selangor)’, in Hsueh-lan-ngo Char-yang hui-kuan yu Char-yang hui-ch'un kuan pai-nien ta-ch'ing t'e-k'an (Souvenir Magazine of Centenary Celebration of the Char Yang Association and the Char Yang Recuperation Centre of Selangor) (Kuala Lumpur, 1977), p. 8.Google Scholar

⁴³ For instance, a charitable organization named Chung-hua chi k'un-chi hui (The Chinese Charitable Association of Malacca) was founded by a British Missionary, William Milne, in 1819. Most of the recipients were crippled, old men and women. See Milne, William (ed.), Ch'a-shih shu mei-yueh t'ung-chi chuan (The Examiner), vol., 1st year of Tao-kuang reign (1821), pp. 5a–5b.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ In September 1849, there was a report in The Singapore Free Press about a serious problem created by beggars in Singapore streets. They become visible in Market, Malacca and Hill Streets. They became more active on Sundays in Brass Bassa Road, Queen, Victoria, Church, Bencoolen and Middle Streets after divine service. Presumably they begged from Europeans and created a great nuisance for the general public. See The Singapore Free Press, 28/9/1849Google Scholar; for others reports on beggars, see also Pau, Lat, 23/1/1908, p. 1.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ For instance, a coolie in Jelabu, Negri Sembilan, named Lim Nyun died in Jelabu hospital as the result of cutting his own throat. He was an old man emaciated by disease and opium smoking. See ‘Negri Sembilan Secretariat Files (British Resident's Office)’, 1902, no. 4413.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Fatt, Yong Ching, ‘Chinese Leadership in Nineteenth Century Singapore’, in Hsin-she hsueh-pao (Journal of the Island Society) (Singapore, 1967), vol. 1. pp. 6–10.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Ching-hwang, Yen, ‘Early Chinese Clan Organizations in Singapore and Malaya’, pp. 73–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ For instance, Raffles placed greater value on merchants than ordinary Chinese, and prepared to give merchants special treatment in the allocation of areas for their residence. See ‘Notices of Singapore’, in Journal of Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia, vol. 8 (1854), p. 102.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ For instance, on the Po Leong Kuk Committee in Singapore for the year 1898, wellknown capitalists such as Tan Jiak Kim, Lee Cheng Yan, Gan Eng Seng and Ngo Siu Tin (Goh Siew Tin), Wee Kim Yam and Seah Song Seah were among those who were selected to represent different dialect groups. See ‘Annual Report on the Chinese Protectorate for the year 1898’, in Straits Settlements Annual Departmental Report 1898, p. 115.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ For example, Hoo Ah Kay and Tan Jiak Kim were conferred both British honours of C.M.G. and M.L.C., Seah Liang Seah, M.L.C., Lee Choon Guan, M.L.C., Eu Tong Seng, O.B.E., in Siang, Song Ong, Chinese in Singapore, pp. 55, 112, 194, 213, 332.Google Scholar

⁵¹ For instance, Hoo Ah Kay was made a member of Executive Council in 1869, later an extraordinary member of the Executive Council; Seah Liang Seah was appointed a member of the Legislative Council in 1883; Tan Jiak Kim was appointed a member of the Council in 1889. Ibid., pp. 55, 194, 213.

⁵² See ‘Annual Report on the Chinese Protectorate, Singapore, for the Year 1889’, in Straits Settlements Annual Departmental Reports 1889, p. 188.Google Scholar

⁵³ For instance, in the 1899 Chinese Advisory Board of Singapore, well-known capitalists such as Tan Jiak Kim, Lee Cheng Yan, Tan Cheng Tuan, Go Sin Kho represented Hokkien group, while Seah Liang Seah, Wee Kim Yam, Chua Tzu Yong, represented Teochew group. See ‘Report on the Chinese Protectorate’, in Straits Settlements Annual Departmental Reports 1899, p. 302.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See ‘Annual Report of the Chinese Protectorate, for the year 1894’, in Straits Settlements Annual Departmental Reports 1894, p. 349.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ For instance, the Penang Chinese Advisory Board in 1894 expressed its strong disapproval of the Women and Girls' Protection Ordinance Amendment, and insisted upon the necessity for a Reformatory. Ibid.

⁵⁶ Since 1874, the Penang government had appointed some respectable Chinese as Jurors of the local court, many of them were clerks of foreign firms, on the Penang Juror list for the year 1882, Cheah Hay Seang was a cashier, Charter Bank; Lee Ah Seng, clerk of the Chartered Bank; Goh Quan Leam, clerk to A. M. Watson; Hoh Tek Cheong, clerk S. Kustermann & Co., Hoh Tek Keng, clerk, Brown & Co.; Koh Ah Fat, clerk, Brown & Co.; Neo Choo chye, cashier, Mercantile Bank; Pan Ah Fat, clerk, Chartered Bank; Soh Teng Gan, clerk, Mercantile Bank, and others. See ‘List of Penang Jurors for 1882’, in Straits Settlements Legislative Council Proceedings 1881Google Scholar, appendix no. 35. In 1881, eleven Chinese were appointed Jurors by the Malacca government for the year 1882, three of them belonged to the upper ‘Shih’ group. They were Chua Cheng Wee, clerk, Chua Kim Swee, auctioneer and Kho Choon Seng, Shroff of the Treasury Department. See ‘List of Malacca Jurors for 1882’, in ibid., appendix no. 36.

⁵⁷ For the power and influence of the Yamen clerks and runners in Ch'ing China, see Chu, T'ung-tsu, Local Government in China under the Ch'ing (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1962), pp. 36–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁸ For factors leading to the founding of the Chinese Protectorates in the Straits Settlements, see Thio, Eunice, ‘The Singapore Chinese Protectorate: Events and Conditions Leading to its Establishment, 1823–1877’, in Journal of the South Seas Society (Singapore), vol. XVI, pts 1 and 2 (1960), pp. 40–80.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ The office of the Singapore Chinese Protectorate was opened on 1 June 1877. See ‘Annual Report of the Protector of Chinese for the Year 1877 by W. A. Pickering dated 12th January 1878’, in Straits Settlements Legislative Council Proceedings 1878, appendix no. 6.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ In Kinta district, Perak, for instance, the Chinese Affairs office consisted of 5 people, the Acting Protector of Chinese, a Junior officer and 3 Chinese clerks. See The Perak Government Gazette 1891, vol. 4, no. 26, p. 765.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See ‘High Commissioner's Office Files (Federated Malay States)’, 105/1896.

⁶² See ‘Selangor Secretariat Files’ (British Resident's Office), 6746/1900.

⁶³ See Pau, Lat, 23/1/1908, p. 1.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See Chin, Siah U, ‘General Sketch’ (see n. 9), p. 285.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Pao, Thien Nan Shin, 15/5/1900, p. 2.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See Siang, Song Ong, Chinese in Singapore., p. 96Google Scholar; see also Ching-hwang, Yen, The Overseas Chinese and the 1911 Revolution: With Special Reference to Singapore and Malaya (Kuala Lumpur, 1976), p. 4Google Scholar; for a similar situation in the Chinese community in the Philippines, see Wickburg, E., The Chinese in Philippine Life (New Haven and London, 1965), p. 172.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Kapitan Yap Kwan Seng of Selangor, a Hakka, employed mostly Hakka coolies in his mines. In 1889, he had 7000 coolies on his pay roll. See ‘Evidence given by Yip Kim Sheng (Yap Kwan Seng) to the commission on 10th January 1891’ (Evidence 174), in ‘Report of the Commissioner Appointed to Enquire into the State of Labour in the Straits Settlements and the Protected Native States, 1891’, C.O. 275/41, also in Straits Settlements Legislative Council Proceedings 1891Google Scholar, appendix.

⁶⁸ Sung Tzu-chiang, an employee of Wu Hsin-k'o, of Chop Teh Yuan in Singapore, appealed against Wu for his failure to pay verbally promised wages. This took place in 1888 or earlier. See ‘Petition of Sung Tzu-chiang to the Protector of Chinese of the Straits Settlements’, in Hare, G. T. (ed.), Text Book of Documentary Chinese, pt 1, vol. 1, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See ‘Chinese Labourers in Province Wellesley: a Report by G. C. Wray, Acting Assistant Protector of Chinese, to the Resident Councillor of Penang dated 2nd June, 1890’ in Straits Settlements Legislative Council Proceedings 1890Google Scholar, appendix no. 21.

⁷⁰ This was the evidence given by the Acting Senior District Officer of Province Wellesley, W. Egerton to the Labour Commission on 18 December 1890. Egerton stated that ill-treatment of Chinese coolies took place in both Chinese and European estates, and some coolies were tied up and beaten. See ‘Report of the Commissioners Appointed to enquire into the State of Labour in the Straits Settlements and the Protected Native States, 1891’, in C.O. 275/41.

⁷¹ See Stenson, Michael, Industrial Conflict in Malaya: Prelude to the Communist Revolt in 1948 (London, 1970), pp. 1–10.Google Scholar

⁷² See Ken, Wong Lin, The Malayan Tin Industry to 1914 (Tucson, 1965), p. 74.Google Scholar

⁷³ See ‘Annual Report for the State of Jelabu for 1890’, in British Parliamentary Papers: Accounts and Papers, C. 6576, 1892, p. 79.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See ‘The Administration Report of the State of Selangor for the year 1893’, in British Parliamentary Papers: Accounts and Papers, C.7546, 1894, p. 27.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ In 1899, the continued high price of tin created a great competition for labour in Selangor. High wages had been demanded by the coolies in tin mines. See ‘Annual Report of the Chinese Secretariat of Selangor for 1899’, in ‘Selangor Secretariat Files’ (British Resident's Office), 905/1900.

⁷⁶ See ‘Chinese Labourers in Province Wellesley: a Report by G. C. Wray, Acting Assistant Protector of Chinese, to the Resident Councillor of Penang dated 2nd June, 1890’, in Straits Settlements Legislative Council Proceedings 1890, appendix no. 21; ‘Evidence given by W. Egerton, Acting Senior District Officer, Province Wellesley, to the Labour Commission on 18th December, 1890’, in ‘Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Enquire into the State of Labour in the Straits Settlements and the Protected Native States, 1891’, C.O. 275/41.

⁷⁷ See The Perak Government Gazette 1899, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 190–1.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See ‘Evidence given by Kho Bu Ann to the Labour Commission on 27th November, 1890’, in ‘Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Enquire into the State of Labour in the Straits Settlements and the Protected Native States, 1891’, C.O. 275/41.

⁷⁹ See ‘The Administration Report of the State of Selangor for the year 1890’, in British Parliamentary Papers: Accounts and Papers, C.6576, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ According to a report, the British Colonial officer took the initiative to organize a meeting in September 1888 to discuss the question of absconding. Those invited were the Chinese Kapitan Yeh Chih-ying, prominent Chinese leaders Chao I-yung, Yeap Kwan Seng and Yeh Li-wang; the leader of Teochew group, K'o Ch'un-po; the leaders of Hokkien groups, Chao Shih-chu, Ch'iu Lien-ch'i, Ch'en Hsiang-p'u and Ch'en Chin-Ian; the leader of Ta P'u Hakka group, Chang Kao-ying and the leader of Chia Ying Hakka group, Li Ch'i-jen. The meeting resolved to raise money among Chinese merchants, and a fund-raising committee was formed. See Pau, Lat, 10/10/1888, p. 1.Google Scholar

⁸¹ See ‘The Administration Report of the State of Selangor for the year 1890’, in British Parliamentary Papers: Accounts and Papers, C.6576, p. 40.Google Scholar

⁸² Ibid.

⁸³ In giving evidence to the Labour Commission on 10 January 1891, the Chinese Kapitan of Selangor, Yap Kwan Seng (Yip Kim Sheng), stated that no Chinese coolie could leave the state unless provided with a pass issued by him. See ‘Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Enquire into the State of Labour in the Straits Settlements and the Protected Native States, 1891’, in C.O. 275/41.

⁸⁴ See ‘The Administration Report of the State of Selangor for the Year 1890’, in British Parliamentary Papers: Accounts and Papers, C.6576, p. 40.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Ibid.

⁸⁶ See Butcher, John, The British in Malaya 1880–1941: The Social History of a European Community in Colonial Southeast Asia (Kuala Lumpur, 1979), pp. 67–8.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See Ken, Wong Lin, The Malayan Tin Industry to 1914, p. 73.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ According to Song Ong Siang, Tan Che Sang was a Cantonese born in Canton in 1763. But Professor Hsu Yun-ts'iao claims that Tan Che Sang's real name was Tan Sang (Ch'en Sung), the word ‘Che’ was the transliteration of a Southern Fukien term ‘Shu’ (uncle) which was a title of respect given to an older person, and Tan Sang was a Southern Fukienese. Strong evidence given by Professor Hsu to his claim is that Tan Che Sang was buried in the Heng Shan Cemetery which was controlled by the Chang Chou and Chiuan Chou people of southern Fukien. I think Professor Hsu's claim can be supported further by the fact that ‘Tan’ is the romanization of the surname ‘Ch'en’ of Southern Fukienese or Teochews. If Tan Che Sang was a Cantonese, his surname should normally be romanized as ‘Chan’ rather than ‘Tan’. See Yun-ts'iao, Hsu, Ma-lai-ya ts'ung-t'an (Anecdotal History of Malaya) (Singapore, 1961) pp. 27–8Google Scholar; Siang, Song Ong, Chinese in Singapore, p. 13.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Song Ong Siang, ibid.

⁹⁰ see Buckely, C. B., An Anecdotal History of Old Times in Singapore (Kuala Lumpur, 1965, reprint), p. 216Google Scholar; Yun-ts'iao, Hsu, Ma-lai-ya ts'ung-t'an, p. 28.Google Scholar

⁹¹ It was reported in Singapore Chronicle that Che Sang was asked to settle a dispute involving three Chinese men who struck down a poor woman into the gutter. With the permission of the government, he sentenced the three men to receive a dozen lashes each, inflicted on them publicly with a ratan. See Singapore Chronicle, 3/3/1831.Google Scholar

⁹² Siang, Song Ong, Chinese in Singapore, pp. 19–20Google Scholar; ‘She Yu-chin hsien-sheng’ (Mr Seah Eu Chin), in Hsing-nung, P'an (ed.), Ma-lai-ya Ch'ao-ch'iao t'ung-chien (the Teochews in Malaya) (Singapore, 1950), pp. 78–80.Google Scholar

⁹³ Song Ong Siang, ibid.; P'an Hsing-nung (ed.), ibid.

⁹⁴ See ‘letter from Yang Chan-wen to the Directors of the Singapore Teo Chew Poit Ip Huay Kuan and the Ngee Ann Kongsi dated 28th October 1965’, in Hsing-nung, P'an (ed.), Souvenir Magazine of 40th Anniversary of the Singapore Teo Chew (Poit Ip) Huay Kuan and the Commemoration of the 150th Anniversary of the Founding of Singapore (Singapore, 1969), p. 164.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ In May 1873, leaders of the three powerful dialect groups in Singapore petitioned the government to suppress the kidnapping of new immigrants in Singapore. Tan Kim Cheng and Cheang Hong Lim represented the Hokkien group, Seah Eu Chin and Tan Seng Poh represented the Teochew community, and Hoo Ah Kay (listed as Hoo Ah Kee) represented the Cantonese group. See ‘Petition from Chinese merchants relative to the Treatment of Chinese Immigrants dated 30th May, 1873’, in Straits Settlements Legislative Council Proceedings 1873, appendix no. 33.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Siang, Song Ong, Chinese in Singapore, pp. 19–20Google Scholar; Fatt, Yong Ching, ‘Chinese Leadership in Nineteenth Century Singapore’, in Journal of the Island Society (Singapore), vol. 1 (1967), pp. 4–6.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ See The Singapore Free Press, 1/3/1849.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ See Blythe, Wilfred, The Impact of Chinese Secret Societies in Malaya: A Historical Study (London, 1969), p. 156.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ See Straits Settlements Law Reports, vol. 4 (1897), p. 28.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Hsiu-ts'ai was the title given to those who had passed the first stage of the imperial examination in Ch'ing China.

¹⁰¹ See Kuo-hsiang, K'uang, ‘Chang Pi-shih ch'i-jen’ (The man Chang Pi-shih), in Kuo-hsiang, K'uang, Pin-ch'eng san-chi (Anecdotal History of Penang) (Hong Kong, 1958), pp. 98–9Google Scholar

¹⁰² See ‘Chang Pi-shih’, in Boorman, H. L. and Howard, R. C. (eds), Biographical Dictionary of Republican China (New York, 1967), p. 90.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ See Reid, Anthony, The Contest for North Sumatra: Acheh, the Netherlands and Britain 1858–1898 (Kuala Lumpur, 1969), pp. 194, 260.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ See Anonymous, ‘Chang Pi-shih’, in K'e Chia: P'i-li K'e-hsu kung-hui k'ai-mu chi-nien t'e-k'an (Hakka: Souvenir Magazine of the Opening Celebration of the Hakka Association of Perak) (Penang, 1951), p. 506.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ See Fu-ch'eng, Hsueh, Ch'u-shih kung-tu (Correspondence of My Diplomatic Mission), vol. 2, pp. 25a–25b.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Ibid.

¹⁰⁷ See Sing po, 1/11/1895, p. 8.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ See ‘Memorial of Governor-General Wang Wen-shao and others to the Court dated 26th day of 2nd moon of 29th year of Kwang-hsu (24th March, 1903)’, in Yu-chi hui-tsun (Collected Records of Imperial Decrees and memorials) (Taipei, 1967, reprint) vol. 51, pp. 1487–8.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Directors and Sub-Directors of the Court of Sacrificial Worship were generally designated as ‘Ching-t'ang’. See Brunnert, H. S. and Hagelstrom, V. V., Present Day Political Organization of China (Taipei, reprint).Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ See Ta-ch'ing te-tsung ching-huang-ti shih-lu (Veritable Records of the Emperor Kuang-hsu of the Great Ch'ing Empire) (Ch'ang ch'un, 1935), vol. 516, p. 5b.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Ibid., vol. 535, p. 6b; Cheng Kuan-ying, Chang, Pi-shih hsien-sheng sheng-p'ing shih-lueh (A Brief Biography of Mr Chang Pi-shih), p. 14.Google Scholar

¹¹² See Godley, Michael R., ‘Chang Pi-shih and Nanyang Chinese Involvement in South China's Railroads 1896–1911’, in Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, vol. 4, no. 1 (03 1973), pp. 16–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Godley, Michael R., The Mandarin-Capitalists from Nanyang: Overseas Chinese Enterprise in the Modernization of China 1893–1911 (Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 1981), pp. 149–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹³ See Middlebrook, S. M., Yap Ah Loy, published as an independent copy of the Journal of the Malayan Branch of Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 24, pt 2 (07 1951), p. 12Google Scholar; Loy, Yap Ah, ‘Yeh Ah-lai cha-chi’ (Miscellaneous Records of Yap Ah Loy by his Subordinates, trans, by Hsu Yun-ts'iao), in Nanyang Hsueh-pao (Journal of the South Seas Society) (Singapore, 06 1957), vol. 13, pt 1, p. 70.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ See Chih-yuan, Wang, Yeh Teh Lai Chuan (A Biography of Yap Ah Loy) (Kuala Lumpur, 1958), pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Loy, Yap Ah (trans. by Hsu Yun-ts'iao, see n. 113), pp. 22–5Google Scholar; Middlebrook, , pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Kapitan Sheng Ming-li was deified after his death to become Hsien shih-yeh who has been popularly worshipped by the Chinese in Kuala Lumpur and Seremban areas. For a biography of Kapitan Sheng, see Ching-wen, Chang, ‘Hsien shih-yeh chia-pi-tan Sheng Ming-li kung shih-lueh’ (A Brief History of Hsien shih-yeh Kapitan Sheng Ming-li), in Ku-t'ing, Yang (ed.), Chi-lung-po Hsien-ssu shih-yeh kung ch'ang-miao shih-lueh (A Concise History of the Founding of the Hsien-ssu shih-yeh Temple of Kuala Lumpur) (Kuala Lumpur, 1959), n.p.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ See Chih-yuan, Wang, Yeh Teh Lai Chuan, pp. 30–1.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Ibid., pp. 44–7.

¹¹⁹ See Middlebrook, , Yap Ah Loy, pp. 26–36Google Scholar; Loy, Yap Ah (trans. by Hsu Yun-ts'iao), p. 71Google Scholar. Official recognition of Yap Ah Loy as Kapitan China by the Sultan of Selangor took place in 1873. See a short biographical note of Loy, Yap Ah in ‘Annual Report on the State of Selangor for the Year 1885’, in Straits Settlement Legislative Council Proceedings 1886, appendix no. 22.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Yap Ah Loy (The Chinese Kapitan) was reported to be the main producer of tin in Selangor in 1879. See ‘Report on the Revenue and Expenditure of the State of Selangor for the Year 1879 by the British Resident dated 12th May, 1880’, in Straits Settlements Legislative Council Proceedings 1880, appendix no. 15.

¹²¹ For a good discussion on political and economic setting of this civil war, see Kim, Khoo Kay, The Western Malay States 1850–1873: The Effects of Commercial Development on Malay Politics (Kuala Lumpur, 1975), pp. 53–143Google Scholar

¹²² Chih-yuan, Wang, Yeh Teh Lai Chuan, pp. 69–171Google Scholar; Middlebrook, , Yap Ah Loy, pp. 36–96Google Scholar; ‘Hsueh-lan-ngo chia-pi-tan Yeh kung teh-lai fen-chan shih-lueh’ (A Short History of Battles of Yeh Teh-lai, the Kapitan of Kuala Lumpur), in Yang K'u-ting (ed.), (see n. 116), n.p.

¹²³ Chih-yuan, Wang, Yeh Teh Lai Chuan, p. 189.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ For a short biography of Shin, Yau Tat, see ‘Yao kung teh-sheng’ (Mr Yau Tat Shin), in P'i-li chia-ying hui-kuan ch'i-shih chou-nien chi-nien, hsin-sha lo-ch'eng k'ai-mu t'e-k'an (Souvenir Magazine of 70th Anniversary Celebration of the Chia Ying Association of Perak and the Opening of its New Club House) (Ipoh, 1974), pp. 512–14.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ In 1898 Yau appeared in the government records as tin miner and farmer (opium and liquor?). See ‘High Commissioner's Office Files (Federated Malay States)’, 454/1898.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ See Siang, Song Ong, Chinese in Singapore, pp. 33, 46, 52, 102, 168.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ See Turnbull, C. M., The Straits Settlements 1826–67 (London, 1972), pp. 31–3.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ This can be found in ‘The Kwang Chao (Kwong Siew) Records’ (unpublished, kept at the Kwang Chao Association (Kwong Siew Hui Kun), Kuala Lumpur). Many of these partnerships led to continuous disputes. Part of this ‘The Kwang Chao Records’ was published in Chi-lung-po Kwang Chao hui-kuan ch'i-shih chou-nien chi-nien t'e-k'an (Souvenir Magazine of the 70th Anniversary Celebration of the Kwong Siew Association of Kuala Lumpur) (Kuala Lumpur, 1957), pp. 42–4.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ This process of transformation can still be found in country towns in Malaysia and other Chinese communities in Southeast Asia today.

¹³⁰ See Little, R., ‘On the Habitual Use of Opium in Singapore’, in Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia, vol. 2 (1848), p. 20Google Scholar; Chin, Siah U, ‘General Sketch’ (seen. 9), p. 295Google Scholar; in September 1846, The Singapore Free Press reported that a large number of coolies from gambier and pepper plantations used to visit the town for the purpose of indulging in gambling, and spent their surplus cash in the different shops in town. But their visits ceased probably because a better opportunity for amusement had been provided in the jungle. See The Singapore Free Press, 17/9/1846.

¹³¹ See ‘Evidence given by W. E. Hooper, Registrar of Hackney Carriage, Jinrickishas, Singapore on 10th August, 1907’, in Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States Opium Commission 1908, Proceedings, vol. 2 (Singapore, 1908), pp. 28–9.Google Scholar

¹³² It appears that at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, many Ying Chun immigrants (southern Hokkien dialect speakers) became transient peddlers between trading centres and distant villages; they also started small shops ‘kedai’ in the Malay kampongs for trading. See Soon, Tan Tek, ‘Chinese Local Trade’, in The Straits Chinese Magazine, vol. 6, no. 23 (09 1902), p. 90.Google Scholar

¹³³ See Vaughan, J. D., The Manners and Customs of the Chinese of the Straits Settlements, P. 15.Google Scholar